Starts at 19:40. I think it went well. The judges were not buying the arguments of the County, and the County's attorney basically conceded that for him to win the panel has to find the 2A doesn't apply outside the home.

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me

“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein

“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me

In a significant win for gun-rights advocates, a federal appeals court in San Francisco on Thursday ruled that the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a San Diego County policy requiring residents to show a "pressing need" in order to get a permit to carry weapons in public. The judges found that in order to receive a permit, a person need only show a desire to defend himself outside the home.

The ruling, which covers California and other Western states, adds to a chorus of conflicting judicial opinions from around the country in recent years on the issue of whether—and when—people can carry firearms outside the home.

While the U.S. Supreme Court established that the right to bear arms applies to individuals inside their homes in 2008 and 2010, it left open the extent to which the right extends outside the home. Legal experts say that question likely will have to be settled by the high court, which is expected later this month to decide whether to take up several other cases dealing with the reach of the "right to bear arms."

Under California law, individuals may receive permits to carry concealed weapons outside the home as long as they show "good cause." The law allows good cause to be defined by individual police chiefs and county sheriffs throughout the state.

San Diego County policy states explicitly that concern for "one's personal safety alone is not considered good cause."

In the case decided Thursday, several people and the California Rifle and Pistol Foundation had sued San Diego County in 2009, claiming the requirement violated the Second Amendment.

The "question is whether [the San Diego County policy] allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense," wrote Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. "The answer…is a resounding no."

"The ruling confirms what my clients have been saying all along—that the Second Amendment requires that people be allowed to carry outside the home for self-defense," said Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Judge O'Scannlain was joined by Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan, an appointee of President George W. Bush. Judge Sidney Thomas, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, dissented.

James Chapin, deputy county counsel for San Diego, defended the policy, saying that "when you're in a county near the border, with gangs and violence, your gun policies tend to be more restrictive." He said that San Diego County Sheriff William Gore "would follow what the legislature and courts ordered."

Jon Lowy, a director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, assailed the ruling in a statement: "Neither history nor precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined…have no good cause or qualifications to do so."

The ruling relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2008 and 2010 rulings, which clarified the individual right to bear arms across the country. In the first of these rulings, called District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court said that certain types of gun control are allowed under the Second Amendment, but declined to specify just what types of restrictions state and local governments can place on carrying a gun outside the home.

Since then, at least four other federal appellate courts have weighed in on the issue. A federal appellate court in Chicago in 2012 struck down an Illinois law that barred most people from carrying a gun outside the home. Federal appeals courts in New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore have all upheld state laws restricting the right to carry outside the home.

On Thursday, Judge O'Scannlain took aim at those three rulings, saying "they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense reasons."

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me

“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein

“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me

The article is talking about the vacated, sharply divided three-judge panel decision in Peruta v. San Diego. As far as this three-judge panel is concerned, as well as every other three-judge panel in the 9th circuit, that decision does not exist.

My prediction is that this three-judge panel is going to decide that the Second Amendment is limited to the home unless it can figure out some way to kick the case without deciding the issue.

The article is talking about the vacated, sharply divided three-judge panel decision in Peruta v. San Diego. As far as this three-judge panel is concerned, as well as every other three-judge panel in the 9th circuit, that decision does not exist.

My prediction is that this three-judge panel is going to decide that the Second Amendment is limited to the home unless it can figure out some way to kick the case without deciding the issue.

I hope I'm wrong.

Ah, I see. So, despite it being a previous precedent as a result of that decision, it magically disappears.

Well then, what needs to be done to get a ruling that cannot be tossed aside that crystallizes the right to carry, in whatever fashion, outside the home, so that the Second Amendment actually means something substantial for keeping and bearing arms in the areas where human beings most need effective options for self-defense?

A Supreme Court ruling?

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me

“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein

“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me

The article is talking about the vacated, sharply divided three-judge panel decision in Peruta v. San Diego. As far as this three-judge panel is concerned, as well as every other three-judge panel in the 9th circuit, that decision does not exist.

My prediction is that this three-judge panel is going to decide that the Second Amendment is limited to the home unless it can figure out some way to kick the case without deciding the issue.

I hope I'm wrong.

Ah, I see. So, despite it being a previous precedent as a result of that decision, it magically disappears.

Well then, what needs to be done to get a ruling that cannot be tossed aside that crystallizes the right to carry, in whatever fashion, outside the home, so that the Second Amendment actually means something substantial for keeping and bearing arms in the areas where human beings most need effective options for self-defense?

A Supreme Court ruling?

Yes, when a case is vacated it may no longer be cited in the circuit. Other circuits can look to the decision as being persuasive, which the Wrenn court did.

We've already had two Supreme Court rulings but I suspect we are going to need a third.

Well then, what needs to be done to get a ruling that cannot be tossed aside that crystallizes the right to carry, in whatever fashion, outside the home, so that the Second Amendment actually means something substantial for keeping and bearing arms in the areas where human beings most need effective options for self-defense?

A Supreme Court ruling?

I'd like to see the Trump Department of Justice start suing states with overly restrictive gun laws, alleging violating the civil rights of gun owners.

It would be much more difficult for federal judges to delay hearing or deciding cases where the federal government is the plaintiff. And states would know they can't try to bleed the feds dry with delaying tactics.

Sessions apparently needs something to do... since he has recused himself from everything else.

"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

This all is becoming a discussion of how many angels can dance on a pinhead. Look at this, "shall not be infringed. Just as an illustration, "felons, really... do they lose their 4th and 5th Amenment rights? No. Only while incarcerated. 2nd A.... for life, really?

Almost all judges, liberal conservative, whatever, try pin dancing and issue rulings based on desired outcome. No judge wants to give John Dillinger a machine gun, so outcome based decisions are created.

I've matured enough to where I am like a rodeo bull... If you can hang in there for eight seconds you just might win... But, those eight seconds are gonna be the toughest of your life

Why is it, that every time I listen to orals in these cases the state always seem to have no answers... Or their answers are "we feel how we do it is legal" judge "but a full ban in practice..." "its not a ban, even if we haven't issued any permits in two decades"

The ONLY chance they have is that they find judges willing to jump through flaming hoops and bend over backwards to help out the state.

its disgusting to watch. Its sickening. And it totally makes sense. You read our founding father's letters and docs leading up to and after the deceleration of independence and you realize how the "state" will do anything to maintain its power. I am saddened that there are many citizens among us that will back up this type of illogical, irrational thinking.

When should we start looking for a decision? I presume there are still more written arguments and addendums after the orals.

9-12 months is my guess.

CIRCUIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE TO RULE 25-2

Notice of Delay: If an appeal or petition has been pending before the Court for any period in excess of those set forth below, the party is encouraged to communicate this fact to the Court. Such notice can be accomplished by a letter to the Clerk identifying the case and the nature of the delay. Generally, such a letter would be appropriate if:

(3) a decision on the merits has not been issued within 9 months after submission;

The shortest I am aware of was issued two days after the case was taken under submission for a decision and the longest was around five years.